Conservatives Believe We SHOULD Infringe on the Right To Bear Arms

{{{""You come into the thread insulting me and a Stanford Law professor because he happens to point out a fact""}}

We know for a fact that you beloved "Law PROFESSOR" IS a Neo-Comm, are you?? And WHAT point does he have?? The majority of the "LAWS" you are talking about were passed by FDR back in 1934 and 1938, before the majority of US were even born. And FDR was a long way from being a conservative. Since we NEVER has a say in what happened before we were born, your argument that we should have no say on anything now is ludacris.

 

Well, not really. Conservatives recognize that rights can be lost due to a consequence to court actions (i.e. due process, which is clearly spelled out in the 5th amendment). Without the ability to take away freedom, life or property, it would be impossible to have a court system and protect rights. We don't see that as infringing on rights. I disagree about machine guns, rocket launchers and silencers, for example. I think they should be allowed to be bought and owned. Background checks, if unobtrusive, are just checking to see if I've lost the right to own a gun due to conviction of a felony, certain violent misdemeanors, dishonorable discharge from the military or involuntary committment to a mental hospital for mental illness.

 

Well at least you're worth responding to. So you feel the average Joe should be able to own machine guns, rocket launchers and silencers. This would be the difference between the Conservatives i know irl and the ones I encounter on the board here. If you look above your post, you'll see a great deal of hysterics, hyperbole, petty insults and almost onothing that is civil, intelligent and honest.
I mean, I didn't bother reading most of them but a quick glance told me much. Because I have the gall to take a college class from a guy who knows than all the "internet experts" here combined, I must be a Dem, a Commie and so on. Someone even said it's not the Conservatives who hold the strong views about keeping guns in the hands of people! (LOL! Cuz you know, Libs are all for that!).
So at least you honest, although from what I gather a very small minority. I watch FOX (as well as the other stations) and virtually every pundit, mouthpiece, politician, lobbyist etc... defending gun ownership right now, fully acknowledges that they don't think machine guns should be legal. Or rocket launchers etc...
If you do, that's cool. I don't. I don't see the point. I certainly see a lot of room for catastrophe (if kids shoot accidentally themselves and others with guns now, what would they do with rocket launchers!).
So I think that the USSC got it right in their decision regarding handguns in DC (in which they actually voted in favor of possession but clearly identified that NO rights are universally applicable, all the time).
Again, kudos. At least you didn't come in with "Your professor is a Socialist, Commie, Idiot, Dog Molester! I am MUCH smarter and more of an expert than a Stanford Law professor because.... because... I have bandwidth!"
So I'm curious as to why you think you would even NEED a rocket launcher?

 

Only a well regulated militia is enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State; everyone else may be infringed upon.

 

Wow. Someone posts an honest thread when it comes to the right to bear arms and the governments controls on arms and some of you become nasty little name calling brats that prove you are nto capable of discussing an issue without resorting to the same old personal attacks. Well this Liberal believes in the right to bear arms, but as a rational person I also know there needs to be some limits and regulations covering ownership. No American needs to own a Nuke, ground to air missiles or a totally functioning tank (including the main gun), as for full auto weapons keep it as it is, go through the checks and pay the licence fee if you pass to own one. If you are deemed a danger to others or yourself you should not be allowed to own guns, good grief folks those going on shooting sprees are not normal in the head. Your rights are not being affected one bit and I would be high suspect of anyone that wanted to own their own missile system. I amn against the current push to ban semi-auto weapons, simple because of the simple fact that it would not change a thing other than give some people a False sense of security, but to say the governent cannot control any aspect of gun ownership is also false and would not be a good idea.

 

So how would you propose to accomplish that under the Constitution as presently amended?

No doubt the British rued the day they failed to recognize the "danger to others" by posed George Washington et al.

So would I, and 2A is not reasonably interpreted to allow ownership of such a system by an individual, as it undermines the security of a free state; but ownership by a state is well within the letter of the Constitution.

 

If I had a rocket launcher, I would treat it like the rest of my guns. I'd shoot it a few times, then it would be locked in the closet gathering dust . It's not a matter of needs. I don't need to have the ability to make phone calls across the world with a portable device. Nobody needs to own a swimming pool. I don't need to have a 50" flatscreen TV. I disagree with banning things, rather than punishing their misuse. The misuse is the problem, not the item.

Responsible gun owners (the great majority of them) are doing a great job at securing guns from kids. Accidental death rates for kids 12 and under by guns are extremely low. According to the CDC's WISQARS database http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html in 2010, 44 kids (12 and under) were killed in gun accidents. That's 0.08 per 100k kids. Yes, those 44 are too high if any were your own, but they aren't as bad as most people think.

 

Rebels of the People and Insurrectionists of the People who keep and bear Arms, must be "infringe-able" in their rights to keep and bear Arms, whenever called upon to do so by the Militia of the United States for that purpose.

 

Your professor could probably care less about what the Founders thought the 2nd Amendment meant. Because what the law meant at the time the law was written should be the true meaning of it.

It should not matter what Rush, Obama or any Federal Justice thinks the law means to them now, it must be based on what the Founders had to say what a "well regulated milita" was at that time (1790's) and what evidence there was for gun control at that time.

If you want to get a bad grade, I would challege this biased man in front of the class.

A couple of questions I would ask him:

If "well regulated" means gun control, then what evidence was there of any gun control, beside not allowing slaves to own them, from any state or federal law at the time the Constitution was written?

The word "infringement" is not placed next to "milita," it is placed next to "arms." What evidence is there there that any form of arms, rifles, muskets, handguns and cannons were prohibited from use by the free public or the militia in the same time period?

 

The various Militia Acts are sufficient proof.

 

No need to change a thing, enforce the laws we already have, no need to amend anything.

I am talking about mental illness not someone that simply does not agree with their government.

The 2A is not specific is what we can and cannot own, I doubt the founders thought they had to define it that far, but then again I doubt they suspected that weapons development would progress to the point it has. As I said, the laws and regulations we have today are just fine by me, I would better enforcement, and I would bet that the SC would rule that they are Constitutional so there ya have it. Look we can all argue the ability of the government to regulate gun sales until we are all blue in the face, the fact of the matter is regulations and rules do not mean anything to criminals and even a law abiding citizen can get around them by simply buying a gun from a private owner such as yourself or me, who is going to tell the government that the sale occurred, not me. If the government is so good at controlling our lives then why have they been throwing money hand over fist at trying to control drugs when in reality they lost the war before they even got started, when the government gets involved in this sort of issue they are not known for their efficiency.

 

So how exactly do you justify the regulation of full-auto weapons under 2A?

As determined by whom?

And just where in the Constitution do you find authority granted to any government entity to restrict access to firearms on the basis of "mental illness"?

Then your constitutional remedy lies in the amendment process and nowhere else.

I would hardly bet against it, seeing its fidelity to the Constitution has been nothing to rave about for the last century or so.

I would prefer to argue until you realize that there is no constitutional basis for government restriction of individual ownership of any firearm which is standard issue to the US infantry.

 

You are,not,familiar,with npa, she is,anything,but,honest.

 

Thank you. You notice I attacked no one but simply put forth some points and exactly what supports those points. Those disagreeing? They made no points. Just petty little personal attacks without substance.

This is a perfect example.

 

I too would like one.

Unfortunately, with a weapon like that, it costs a car a minute worth of ammo to fire :/

 

The title of this post is similar to another flame baiting post making the claim that Conservatives are responsible for Slavery, the Civil War, the KKK, Jim Crow, Poll Taxes and in general racists. FDR a Democrat with a Democratic Party majority in Congress restricted fully automatic weapons. What Republicans before and since have proposed or passed Anti-gun laws?
Fact:
National Firearms Act of 1934 legal definition of National ...
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National Firearms...Cached
What does National Firearms Act of 1934 mean in law? ... by the 1933 death of Chicago mayor Anton Cermak during an assassination attempt on President Roosevelt ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

 

Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

"i dont believe people should be able to own guns" -barack obama
the left wants the second amendment removed completely.

 

There is no such thing as "license". "License" is what people call rights they personally don't like and want to deprive of others.

 

the right doesn't believe in human sexuality even with a First Amendment.

 

yes to all of the above... unless someone is committed or imprisoned at the time, but they should be able to own a gun to protect their homes and family when they are released back into society as free men and women......


.

 

It constantly bothers me how many so called constitutional law experts don't understand the COTUS. I'm just some guy on the internet but ask yourself or anyone who claims to be an expert on the subject what did the second amendment amend? Are we a nation of laws? Do laws have specific meanings? And if a law has been ignored or misinterpreted by many for a long time does that make it ok to continue ignoring or misinterpreting it?

I agree it's not right for this professor or anyone else to speak for the "most extreme conservatives in the country".

I and many others think machine guns should be owned. In fact this assumption speaks to the ignorance of the professor. Machine guns are legal now in many states. The law just has a lot of hoops and red tape. Not only that IMO US v Miller makes the restriction of arms such as the M16A1 unconstitutional. A quick and dirty explanation, US v Miller was a case in the 30s that challenged the 1934 NFA though largely centering on short barreled shotguns. However in the majority opinion it stated basically that any arm in common use by the military is protected by the second. When the M16A1, a machine gun by many definitions became the standard issue rifle, it then became protected under the second.

I believe a constitutional argument can be made that rocket launchers are legal, this comes down to the letter of the law in the COTUS. No power was ever granted for the federal government to restrict the ownership of rocket launchers or any armaments.

I do not believe background checks should be conducted, this includes mental illness. Three reasons, first it is an infringement and unconstitutional. Second it's a slippery slope, these background checks started out as only felons, they now include so many other things and more are proposed all the time. It's becoming a list of government approved owners. Last to me as a matter of principal, either your free or your not, either you've been convicted and are in jail, or your free to vote, own a firearm etc.

Yes and no, in a practical sense yes, but legally no. If we are going to be a nation of laws the government has the responsibility to make and enforced the letter of the law. No constitutional power has ever been granted to create any laws regarding arms. They need to pass a constitutional amendment giving them the power to do so, and if sufficiently limited I'd support that.

1. Should be and are in many states.
2. Should be and are in most states.
3. Should be and a constitutional argument can be made that they are.
4. What is "diagnosed with homicidal tendencies"?

 

I liked what you had to say until I got here. I understand your argument however what you speak of are the actions done with such arms not the simple possession of those arms. Simple comparison murder by handgun is illegal but possessing the handgun is not.

The COTUS did not remove the power of the states to have their own militias, in fact many states still do. This alone defeats the argument made in the first paragraph I quoted. However we can take this further, even outside of an army or militia this is not an argument against private ownership. Only an argument that it's illegal to conduct your own war with them.

Your Article I, Sec 8 cl 11, is very similar. Privateering is a constitutionally limited action, owning the tools to do so is not. If we go back to the context of the day an argument could not be made that a privateer could not own the tools of the trade before seeking the permission to use them or after that permission had been revoked.

There is no constitutional power to "disable" any rights for any reason.

It has gotten very subjective, for example today if someone gets a restraining order against you that removes your gun rights. This is done simply out of fear and without due process. You may not even be aware until the sheriff shows up with a search and seize order for your firearms.

 

1. Machine guns are legal.
2. .50 cals are legal.
3. no one could afford one except the very rich then all they have to do is get a dealers license and they can get one.
4. Many rights are curtailed for those that cannot or do not understand what rights are and abuse them.

 

So your argument is that only men can own firearms?